Press Now is allowed to report from the family courts

Journalists can now report from family courts in England and Wales in what Britain’s most senior family judge has called a “watershed” change.

From Monday, accredited journalists can speak to families about their ongoing cases, report what they see and hear in court, and quote from key documents – provided they keep those families anonymous. Be.

Family courts decide matters that have a deep impact on family life, such as deciding whether children should be taken into care or which parent they should live with.

Hearings are held in private, and while journalists have been allowed to attend since 2009, they have no authority to report.

Monday’s change follows a two-year “transparency pilot” that started with three court centers and now covers almost half of the family courts in England and Wales.

Using Pilot, the BBC has reported on a number of cases, including one in Cardiff Family Court Where a young mother, who we’ll call Bethan, had to spend £30,000 to protect her young daughter.

Her ex-husband, the child’s father, was convicted of multiple pedophile crimes.

The family court agreed that he should lose parental rights over the little girl.

Bethan told us she thought the new ruling was “fantastic news.” He said, “Allowing reporting in the family court highlights issues that the public should have a right to know about”.

Her daughter, she said, was now thriving.

“She has an empathy and sympathy for her younger friends that simply could not have developed if she was being brutalized in the way her father’s victims were. Thanks to the decision of the family court, she has a full and There is a chance to have a happy life.

BBC reporting of Bethan’s case led the then MP Harriet Harman to campaign to change the law on parental access – Which is going on now.

In the future, no other parent in Bethan’s situation will have to go to court to remove parental rights from those convicted of the most serious pedophile crimes.

Sir Andrew MacFarlane, the most senior judge in the Family Court, said Bethan’s case was an example of how the new rules should operate.

“If something is not working well, it needs to be called out,” he said. Reporting and calling out such cases was a “healthy development”, he said, adding that he “looked forward to more in the future”.

There has been resistance to transparency.

In 2023 a senior family judge in Manchester blocked journalists from reporting a case.

During a private court hearing Judge Haig made comments about the new approach, which were published when journalists went to the Court of Appeal.

Judge Haigh stated that he was not a supporter of the “Transparency Project”.

“I’ve always felt that these matters are deeply personal and my decisions are really for the parents, to help them,” he said. “They are not for public consumption or to allow the press and journalists to pursue their journalistic ambitions.”

Last year at the High Court, Mr Justice Williams blocked the publication of the names of family court judges in the Sara Sharif case – although he released documents from the case to the press. it was Indicted by the Court of Appeal last weekwho said judges should be identified whether sitting in private, as they do in family cases, or in public.

Some lawyers also worry that the new rules could have “unintended consequences.”

Alexandra Hirst, a solicitor at Bodle Hatfield, a family law firm with offices in Mayfair, and many wealthy clients, expressed concern that individuals would be reluctant to give details of their private lives in court, knowing that reporters would be “extremely “Personal” has to be heard. Proof”.

“Even though publishing names is not allowed, there is a real concern that there will be enough information available to make it work,” she said.

Sir Andrew said he was not surprised there was resistance to the new approach.

“I understand and respect people,” he said. “Change is change”. A number of courts originally approached to participate in the pilot, he said, “did not greet us with open arms”.

Sir Andrew said that when journalists come to the judges’ court, “it is very favorable that it is relatively straightforward”.

He said the reporting was “vital” and included coverage of issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people in society, such as children deprived of liberty orders and cases of child neglect or abandonment.

He cited the case of baby Elsa and her siblings as an important story, which was highlighted by the BBC. in June last year We revealed that baby Elsa was the same parents’ third child Being abandoned for more than seven years.

Many newsrooms are under considerable financial pressure, and some have questioned how much reporting on family courts they can afford.

Don Alford, executive director of the Society of Editors, said the freedom to report for journalists would have a particular value to regional and local audiences.

This was “really important coverage,” she said, adding that “it’s hugely important to the lives of so many” that could help communities “recognize the role of mainstream media”.